Comment viewing options

In the 'favorite philosophy' thread, I said Nisargadatta was my favorite. I don't consider his teachings 'art', but a path to truth. I'm not quite sure where 'allegory' fits in, either. It's not a fiction story but his actual story, what he experienced.

Your post has confused me.

—

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Doesn't Nisargadatta teach felicity, the art of life? If true reality is unknowable and undefinable and our world transient and illusory, aren't all words inherently false? By his own admission, once he begins to explain his experience with words, the words immediately fail to convey the experience. Isn't he telling his illusory story to illusory separate beings in order that they may experience the hidden reality behind all? His teachings can be seen as the ultimate allegory, if you look from a certain angle.

There's no 'art' in it. The term 'true reality' has no meaning. There is nothing that is unknowable. Are you reading these words in your own little world? Then they and it are not illusory. Words are merely a way to express feelings or identify objects. No one can convey one's experience because experience relies on feelings and no one body ever feels the same as any other body. Illusory is the wrong word to describe his story. Read his following books.

—

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

The art of meditation is the art of shifting the focus of attention to ever subtler levels, without losing one's grip on the levels left behind. In a way it is like having death under control. One begins with the lowest levels: social circumstances, customs and habits; physical surroundings, the posture and the breathing of the body, the senses, their sensations and perceptions; the mind, its thoughts and feelings; until the entire mechanism of personality is grasped and firmly held. The final stage of meditation is reached when the sense of identity goes beyond the 'I-am-so-and-so', beyond 'so-l-am', beyond 'I-am-the-witness-only', beyond 'there-is', beyond all ideas into the impersonally personal pure being.

In reality you were never born and never shall die. But now you imagine that you are, or have a body and you ask what has brought about this state. Within the limits of illusion the answer is: desire born from memory attracts you to a body and makes you think as one with it. But this is true only from the relative point of view. In fact, there is no body, nor a world to contain it; there is only a mental condition, a dream-like state, easy to dispel by questioning its reality.

-Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

I would suggest that adopt some kindness in your approach. I would also suggest that you re-read what you have said to me in error and anger, and apply those words to your own search for truth.

Who is unkind? The kindest thing I did was reply to you to help you think outside of your dedicated concepts.
You are the one making judgements based on my simple, boiled down reply. You are the one accepting new concepts to describe old concepts. You are the one deciding what meditation 'has' to be. You are the one telling me, or everyone else for that matter, that we must subscribe to your prescribed excercises in order to meditate. What do you know of this entity called 'stm'?
I read what Allegory wrote, saw the forum he placed his OP under and questioned why he added a new concept to 'life' and its experiences and the teachings of Nisargadatta. You jumped in and wanted me to accept this new concept based on what? Your acceptance of Allegory's new concept?
I posit you are perturbed with me for challenging your concepts. Again, my advice is to read all Nisargadatta's books have you not already done so.

—

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

entire thought process to you and answer all questions I can in hopes of clearing this misunderstanding. I found a post that interested me, read it, and read the comments. You stated you were confused by the post.

I then positioned my focus at a point in my world where my consciousness and Allegory's meet. In that state, I spontaneously wrote a series of questions with the intent of bringing understanding to confusion that would gently allow one to “see from a different angle” if asked in earnest.

You then made a series of definite conclusions about things open for discussion, contrary to the historic record of Nisargadatta's words, and asked if I was reading the words in my own little world. To answer, I know of only one world, the one apparent to me. It seems quite expansive, but as it is the only one I have direct access to I have no means of comparison. I focused at a point in my world where my consciousness and yours meet in hopes of understanding the intent and meaning of your communication.

I then quoted the words of Nisargadatta and held up a mirror in an effort to bring balance.

In response to some of your questions and comments in your last response: I am relatively unmoved. I balance kindness and directness, and if my words came across as rude I genuinely apologize. To communicate one must make judgments of the others intent, whether logical, intuitive, or instinctual. I accept no new concepts and the old lie mostly dormant. I have not asked you to accept any concept, nor would I. I have not espoused any view of my own, I simply quoted Nisargadatta's description of meditation. I would not nor did I ask anyone to follow Nisargadatta's practice of meditation. I only know you by that which you communicate. I never asked you to do anything except apply your own advice to yourself. As indicated I did not accept Allegory's concept, but I did and still do find his post interesting. Not really. I will continue to read Nisargadatta at any pace that pleases me, or not at all if I am so moved.

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer